There have been several posts around the blogosphere of late regarding a report from journalist Steven Goddard that the arctic sea ice isn’t melting as quickly as we thought. In particular he was calling into question the validity of the data reported from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado — I’ve included that graph below.

However, his analysis was not well-founded, and he’s since admitted his mistake. The Island of Doubt has posted a nice summary of what was wrong with his arguments. They write:

Goddard’s article is rife with scientific errors and evidence of his lack of familiarity with the science. His main argument, that the ice area up there is 30% larger than last year, not just 10%, is the product of the fact that Goddard based his story on his own analysis of images from the NSIDC and other sources. That analysis… consisted entirely of counting white pixels…. It turns out that Goddard got confused because he didn’t take into account map-projection distortion differences between competing images.

Once that little problem is dispensed with, it turns out that there is no discrepancy, the arctic is melting faster than normal, and may yet break last year’s record. Or not. Even if Goddard had been right, though, that says nothing about long-term trends. The point is, as Goddard proved, if you’re going to argue that an entire field of scientists got it wrong, you really should know something about the subject.

To Goddard’s credit, though, he admitted his mistake.

Sadly, the story has already started to make its way around the internet. So, just like myths like polar bear fur being a fiber optic (it’s not), or cats which grow wings (they don’t) it may be hard to get this one to go away. Why is it so much easier to spread rumors that something false is true than to fix the problem by telling people that something they think is true is actually false?  It’s made worse by the fact that some folks want to have fodder to fuel denialist claims, so they don’t have a lot of reason to correct erroneous information.

Deltoid also blogs about Goddard’s article here.

Wow, I just saw a great YouTube by a science teacher on climate change. He frames the issue in terms of risk management. Rather than “who’s right?”, he asks “which scenario would we rather risk?” The one where we waste money to try to save an earth that’s fine as it is, or the one where we neglect to address the issue and are visited by multiple disasters? This is a common way to attack the issue, but the video is very well done. As my friend who sent it to me said, “ten minutes well spent!”